Is firearm ban overshooting?

On the face of it there’s much to commend the Government’s moves to make it illegal for people deemed high risk to society to own firearms, particularly the focus on gang connections.

The brace of changes would empower courts to impose firearms prohibition orders and would bolster the state’s ability to strip the assets of those associated with organised crime.

These are ideas that will resonate with the public but a smooth passage through Parliament and the public consultation process is far from guaranteed by righteously virtuous intent. That is as it should be because pitfalls do present themselves.

Civil libertarians certainly have cause to scrutinise these plans for the risk of over-reaching.

Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie raises one such possibility. He acknowledges the good sense of focusing carefully on gangs but the criteria for deeming what constitutes ‘‘high-risk’’ include people convicted of certain offences under the Arms Act, Domestic Violence Act or serious violent offences. Gillespie plausibly foresees debate on whether it’s a good thing for these thresholds to exist irrespective of whether a person is a gang member.

It’s an area in which the Government’s intentions differ from a bill already before the House from National’s Simeon Brown, which is more tightly focused on organised crime.

Since the Christchurch mosque shootings a consistent theme from ACT and many firearms owners was that the Government buyback of firearms failed to address the fact that gangs, in particular, wouldn’t be handing any guns back, and would have many illegal ones anyway.

This legislation would appear to be, at least partly, an acknowledgement of, and reaction to, that. And as with so many laws, its serviceability will come down to the extent to which it can be enforced by a well-resourced police force.

As evidence of its commitment, Labour touts its recent initiative Operation Tauwhiro, targeting the disruption and prevention of firearms-related violence by gangs and criminal groups. Since February, 350 firearms and $2.46 million in cash have been seized, and 378 people arrested.

This can be seen as quite a haul. It’s also legitimate to stand further back and seriously question how great a proportion this is of the overall scale of criminal activity that has persisted and been developed for such a long time.

As for the court-sanctioned seizure of ill-gotten assets, the curiosity for many people will be that these powers don’t already exist under laws stretching back to the John Key government, which have already garnered more than $1 billion.

Again, it is a figure that might sound more impressive than it is when considered against the undetected profits that have occurred during that time.

The changes are being presented as a refinement of the existing prosecution capabilities. Once police have gone to the courts with evidence that someone has assets beyond the reach of their known legitimate income, the burden of proof would then fall on the owners to show where they received the money.

Though we may picture the authorities targeting the most extravagant trappings of the high life, it’s worth noting that the process would also extend to goods like fashionable clothes and shoes – rewards sufficient to entice the lickspittle wannabes that the crime overlords so often recruit to commit offences.

[Is it] a good thing for these thresholds to exist irrespective of whether a person is a gang member.